ZeroG arm - Equipois

Yes but this one uses a easily obtained spring and can be made at home.

Dan

It isn't really new, but the Wall Street Journal thought it was. I suspect that there is a limited amount of tool use going on at the WSJ.

Paul K. Dickman

Goodness, I've got three of these around the farm. I used car leaf springs to zero balance very heavy things. I didn't even think it was worthy of a note to RCM as they are so common. Guess I should have got a patent about 20 years ago when I built the first one.

Karl

Karl

Ignoramus25480 fired this volley in news:x7CdnQZ26KJwFgDTnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

Not only that, but tool balancers on swinging trolly arms have been around forever, too. I'm not sure I see the advantage of a big, bulky spring arm attached to my tool.

That bit about the swinging trolley is important if you're moving the tool around in a work envelope that might pull the balancer cable off- angle from the reel. When it draws at an angle, it both fails to balance the weight, and also tends to pull the tool toward the reel horizontally.

The arm swings an arc that covers the (say) NE-SW corners of the work envelope, and the trolley allows it to move along the NW-SE lines.

I think that could be hammed up by an HSM faster and more easily than the pantograph style arm depicted.

LLoyd

--Many moons ago when Steadicam was new and kewl and very expensive a guy reverse engineered it and made one with a pair of aluminum crutches and some garage door springs. He got an article published in Super 8 Filmmaker magazine. Steadicam had a shit fit and by court order every copy of the magazine was recalled and destroyed. Not sure what happened to the guy who wrote the article but I bet it wasn't nice. If you decide to clone this thing just be aware of the lawyers that'll be in the loop in short order. 'Course nowadays if you put a page up showing how to do it, it'll go viral and no amount of legaleze will be able to re-cork that bottle, hehe.

Paul, you got that right. Many years back I worked as a Product Review Journalist in the computer industry. In those 12 years, in many different magazines and newspapers I worked for, I never once met another journalist working there who was technically adept with computers. They were hired for their journalistic skills (???) and not their knowledge of computers. No surprises that the WSJ figured this is new. The guy reporting probably got to take home a few freebies.

The support arms on my $12 double-parallelogram desk lamp has two almost identical set ups. Not sure exactly when I bought the lamp but it was before we moved to this house and that was 14 years back.

Dave

, Titanium: =A0

Not so. There's no exception for personal use, in the US anyway.

I didn't know that. Thanks, Ned!

"The [patent] grant confers 'the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States'".

Another childhood illusion STH! :)

--Winston

Doing some reading, the enforcement mechanism still won't work if there are no damages.

Anyway, if you made a copy of a patented item they may be able to keep you from using it, issue an injunction to keep you from making more, but no enforcement mechanism exists to make you destroy it or not display it.

Dave

Basically a U.S. patent is a patentee's 'license to sue' "*to exclude others from making*, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States'".

The Patent Office does not enforce patents. Only wealthy companies can do that. (The same companies that purchased the judge and your lawyer.) :)

--Winston

From the page Winston pointed to:

"If a patent is infringed, the patentee may sue for relief in the appropriate federal court. The patentee may ask the court for an injunction to prevent the continuation of the infringement and may also ask the court for an award of damages because of the infringement."

Recoverable monetary damages may be nil, but a motivated patent holder could still prevent an infringer continuing the patent violation. In other words, force him to destroy the offending device.

In addition, it's apparently infringement to induce or enable others to infringe a patent.

"Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer. {FN51: 35 U.S.C. §271(b)}," which may have been the basis of the Steadi-cam incident.

Sorry about that, Winston, but I was also the little turd who pulled out a loose tooth and put it under my pillow without telling anyone. Then ran downstairs in the morning waving the tooth around demanding, "Where's the Tooth Fairy now?"

(...)

Uh - Oh. :) :)

--Winston

(...)

Let's say a friend of mine (that's right, a *friend*) happened to create a schematic clearly showing how a commercially produced electronic assembly worked, could I um HE be sued for 'inducing an infringement'?

What if HE received money for doing that reverse engineering?

--Winston

Winston fired this volley in news: snipped-for-privacy@news3.newsguy.com:

Indeed, he would be guilt of copyright infringement or patent violation.

Most "licenses to use" contain language to prevent reverse-engineering. Lacking that, the fact that you (um, HE) divulged to someone else the details to the degree necessary to reproduce the [object, process, program, take your pick] is, in itself, an infringement. If 'he' had kept it to 'himself' it would have only been an academic exercise. The payment makes it "industrial espionage", which isn't taken lightly in any circles.

LLoyd (who's presently prosecuting a copyright violation of his own work)

LLoyd

Luckily, HE was working for a well known company that is immune to legal prosecution.

Good luck!

--Winston

Winston fired this volley in news: snipped-for-privacy@news4.newsguy.com:

Ahhh! You work for the Gummint, no?

LLoyd